[Note:
This is article 4 of a four part series. You can read part 1 here
and 2 here. The original
article explaining the differences between Actives and Passives is here.]

Active investors
innovate… they are the independent business owners of the world.
Passives build on the creative energies of the Active group. Passive investors
like things “big” because big is safer than small. Actives
are risk managers; Passives are risk avoiders who use the words “risk
taking” rather than “risk management.” Actives are conservative;
Passives are liberal.

In the fall of 1970,
Henry Kissinger made a secret trip to China. Nixon met with the Chinese
communists in 1972 to discuss international trade (and to give them intelligence
information about the Soviet Union). American economic stability began
to be dependent upon and controlled by international, not national, markets.
A new phenomenon emerged: the military-industrial complex. Change was
in the wind and change is disliked by those with low-risk management skills
(Passives).

In 1960, traditional
social values were rejected by Hippies and Yippies ... a fitting end to
a Passive cycle. A drug culture emerged and the Active cycle began that
very year. When we move into an active cycle, we almost always have an
economic base change (never when going from Active to Passive). In 1960,
we moved from an industrial/manufacturing base to technology, information,
and service. In the late 1980s, George Herbert Walker Bush began talking
about a “New World Order.” Americans didn’t like it
and he lost his Presidential bid for re-election.

Traditional political
values were questioned. Previously unheard of demonstrations against America’s
military and political involvement in the Vietnam War – a war started
by Passives and ended by Actives – were almost daily occurrences.
Non-traditional civil rights for minorities caused rebellion in our streets.
Those who fought in Vietnam were spat upon by Passives as they returned
from their military service. Passives ran away to Canada. Active citizens
inherited in 1960 a government grown too big, too arrogant, and too motivated
by power to control.

In 1960, we also
moved from a traditional national economy to an international economy.
Traditional wealth (including giant corporations) that were relics of
the industrial era began to lose their power base as Americans found higher
paying jobs programming computers than they earned on production lines.
Older employees unable to grasp the requirements of information age knowledge
(or had such opportunities withheld from them because of age) didn’t
find new jobs. America’s giant corporations were almost exclusively
controlled by members of the Passive energy group and moved into the arena
to fight for its ongoing right to power. Corporate leaders began shipping
traditional American jobs to foreigners as the giant sucking sound of
NAFTA happened as Ross Perot predicted it would. As American jobs disappeared,
so too did our industrial and manufacturing base. There has been no conservative
leadership since it happened to re-invigorate that base.

If you examine the
personality traits of the Active energy group, you will see why that group
dominated the changes that occurred in 1760, 1860, and 1960.

If you examine the personality traits associated with the Passive energy
group, you will see where that group's motives formed policies during
the changes that occurred in the cycles of 1710, 1810, 1910, and again
in 2010.

It appears one can
take a cursory look at American history and project pretty clearly that
Active cycles occur every fifty years, only to be replaced by Passive
cycles that also last fifty years.

One of the greatest
downsides in communist and socialist regimes is the loss of creative energy.
It appears to flow only in a free society where:

a) The risks required
to innovate are rewarded rather than penalized – innovation requires
failures before success can be enjoyed (under tyrannical governments
one can lose one’s life for a failed experiment); and,

b) Risk management
is not impeded by government regulation – the Obama Problem caused
by innate power drives geared to make Passives feel more important than
they really are but which prevent Actives from agreeing to manage the
risks government dictates they must if they want to be entrepreneurs.

c) Cradle-to-grave
government care programs have not yet dimmed the survival instinct of
the human beast.

If you want to know
the real reason the Obama Administration cannot create jobs in the current
economic environment, re-read a, b, and c.

As it pertains to
the most recent cycle from 1960 to 2010, it was driven socially (if not
politically) by principles that motivate the Active energy group... control
and contraction (privatization) dominate. This cycle gave America the
greatest number of new business start-ups ever recorded. The fact that
a large percentage of these new businesses are owned by minorities and
women is further evidence that civil rights prosper during Active cycles
(liberal spin to the contrary).

As of 1994, politicians
other than Democrats controlled both Houses of the Congress for the first
time in fifty years. Unfortunately, the social legislation Passives passed
during their 50-year political dominance was not reversible. Also unfortunately,
conservatives were no longer the norm of the Republican Party. They did
not perform their fifty-year cyclical jobs – and as I predicted
in the 1990s, if conservatives did not perform their cyclical jobs as
conservatives, they would lose the right to dominate until the 2010 cycle
dictated a change to Passive power. It appears that prediction came true
– and persists. The Republican Party has forgotten its roots and
ignores the wishes of the people. As a result, we have been burdened with
a Liberal Congress since 2006 and a Liberal White House since 2008.

The arrival on the
scene of neo-conservatism (liberal light) subscribed to by George W. Bush
during his eight-year presidency caused the first ripple in the heretofore
very predictable 50 year cycle waves. Passive liberals re-took control
of the House and the Senate under the Bush Presidency in 2006, during
this Active cycle. It shouldn’t have happened. They weren’t
scheduled to regain power until 2010, but thanks to the liberal behavior
of the neo-conservative Republicans, the GOP lost its traditional support
base. The stage was set for Obama’s Presidential victory in 2008.
It is clear that Republicans at the State and National Party level do
not understand the risk management objectives of their constituents or
how to achieve them. They believe avoiding risk altogether (a Passive
trait) is the same thing as managing risk. It is not – and it represents
the reason the Republicans have been unable to put forward a political
candidate for the Presidency that garnered the enthusiasm and support
of the core base that gets Republicans elected to the Oval Office.

The cycle will begin
again ... somewhat cleaner at the start, edging closer and closer to power-abuse
and corruption as their 50-year cycle ends in 2060 (though how it could
get any more corrupt than it is in 2012 is hard to figure). The cyclical
objective of Passives/liberals is to take the new startup companies of
Actives/conservatives and make them bigger and more stable, more secure.
The socialists have prostituted that purpose and turned the objective
into increasing the size of government, instead. The 2012 voting results
will determine just how much power Liberals will have during the start-up
phase of their 2010 50-year cycle.

The downfall of Actives
is usually caused by the strong individualist nature of the beast. Too
many people trying to make control of individual lifestyles its rallying
cry seldom results in a unified purpose. Trying to get the diverse beliefs
of conservatives to act in unison is like getting your arms around the
wind. Conservative politicians have difficulty effectively communicating
their positions because they focus on issues rather than philosophy. Issues
derive from philosophy; philosophy does not derive from issues. Mitt Romney
focuses on issues rather than philosophy – and that’s why
conservatives don’t like him. They know their beliefs stem from
a philosophic base, not issues that result from not having a philosophy
of right and wrong. Adding Paul Ryan, a man who clearly understands the
need to deal with problems rather than merely issues, to his ticket will
help solve that problem – but it also opens up some dangerous doors.
Have no doubt, Liberals will jump on the opportunity to further divide
and conquer based on the problems Paul Ryan has already identified and
presented to the American public.

Rather than increasing the size of new companies created by Actives during
their 1960-2010 cycle, Passives are creating jobs through the public sector
(government), utilizing taxes as a way to enhance the lifestyles of the
lower and middle classes… destroying the middle class in the process.
Is it part of a plan? Probably. When the tax burden on those who create
wealth and jobs becomes too great because government is too large, companies
– including major corporations – begin axing employees. Small
businesses stop expanding. As business taxes go up, they must make cutbacks
– and that is usually the end of the Passive cycle. This time, it
is happening at the beginning of the 2010 Passive cycle. It’s never
happened before…

But a very interesting
thing has happened. Both political parties have become totally corrupt.
Both have abandoned the rule of law under the Constitution and this leaves
the marketplace which, if left alone, would continue to function in its
50-year cycles, without direction. Thus, the political system is corrupt
– including the courts – and the people who still function
on the 50-year cycle principle (free enterprisers) find themselves with
no representation in government.

The 2010 cycle is
different in other ways, too. The populace of this nation is almost 50
percent dependent upon government for its existence and ongoing survival.
There is no doubt great effort has been put forth to encourage people
to become more dependent upon government and the services it offers…
from classes before and after school so parents largely depend upon government
to raise their children, to unwed mothers being paid more than women who
work to stay home on welfare and have babies. Government advertises on
television about how to qualify for food stamps, for heavens sake!

Republicans (not
conservatives, Republicans) seem determined to force us into global governance
via fascism; Democrats seem determined to force us into a world government
via socialism. The point is, both political parties want one world government…
shades of George Herbert Walker Bush’s New World Order. And the
thrust to gain precisely that was begun under the Bush 41 presidency (though
the plans for world government had been ongoing for many years).

What we are living
through now is a merging of wave cycles of other nations as the total
political structure seeks one world government. It is causing economic
tsunamis.

The difficulty behind
the current change is the move to an international economy. It is a new
element and makes things more difficult for any one group to exercise
control or power. The number of players upon which our economy is now
dependent has increased. They have their own power bases, their own control
groups. They have their own self-vested interests to attend. And, the
50-year economic cycles of other nations are not compatible with our own.
They have their own cycles… an event I do not believe the powerful
manipulators of power properly assessed. It is why their plans are not
working.

Western Europe appears
to have entered its Active cycle in about 1975 while the U.S. entered
its Active cycle in 1960. The Maasricht Treaty established the European
Union under its current name in 1993. The nations of that Continent, all
running on their own economic cycles, were forced by political (rather
than market) conditions to change cycles before they were individually
ready as nations… and it stripped their gears. They were never ready
for the major changes that the loss of sovereignty would cause each of
them. Those elected to office within the European Union dealt with the
problem much like an impatient and unprofessional doctor: “They’ll
get over it!”

They thought they
were dealing with a temporary disease – a cold – but the various
patients/nations had pneumonia… including America.

If standards that
encourage independent business start-ups and expansion are not put in
place soon, the entire economy will fail. That is the segment that provides
the greatest number of new jobs in America. What are those standards?

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

1.
Don’t ask independent business owners to manage risks controlled
by government. Only a fool manages risks controlled by someone other than
him/herself (especially when that someone is a government with no respect
for the Rule of Law).2. Get regulations out of the way – especially
OSHA and EPA. It adds many thousands of dollars to the cost of new business
start-ups.3. Stop proposing tax increases for the very rich only.
Independent businesses are usually S-Corporations where business income
is declared as personal income. Business income, however, is used for
business expansion, not personal income. If anyone in government had ever
started his/her own business, he/she would know that.4. Get the uncertainty of health care costs out of the
way.5. Get a floor under the real estate market because that
is the asset most independent business owners use as collateral for business
purpose loans to individuals. As long as real estate values are sinking,
it will be very difficult for independent business owners to borrow.

Marilyn
MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the
Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and
bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing
Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private
Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry
publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and
taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers
Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two
works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous
Boards in her community.

Barnewall
is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist
has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News
and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News
With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily,
Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall
Street Journal and other national and international publications. She
can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's
Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.

If standards that
encourage independent business start-ups and expansion are not put in
place soon, the entire economy will fail. That is the segment that provides
the greatest number of new jobs in America. What are those standards?